What should decide home field in Series?

All-Star Game working

Joseph Moskowitz


The Morning Call

The All-Star Game used to mean pride for both leagues. A maniacal Pete Rose charging down the third-base line in 1970 is a vision that will live forever.


But when interleague play began and players started jumping from team to team and league to league, the pride had waned and the All-Star Game became meaningless. This is best seen in 2002, when the game ended in a tie.

Consequently, baseball declared the league that won future All-Star Games would get home-field advantage in the World Series.

The tactic worked. Players again care. Managers again care. And most importantly, fans again care. Eliminating the importance of the game would make it the equivalent of NFL's Pro Bowl.

Let real games settle it

Kevin Baxter

Los Angeles Times

It would be better to award the home-field advantage in the World Series based on interleague play, certainly, because at least you're using real games to make the call. Awarding home-field advantage in the World Series based on the results of the All-Star exhibition is a little like determining the site of the Super Bowl by which NFL conference wins the most preseason games.


The All-Star Game is an exhibition. With interleague play, free agency and a long spring training schedule there is no separation between the American and National leagues anymore. And with all the money at stake, no player is going to risk injury trying to win the All-Star Game. So it's an exhibition.

Anything but ASG

Steve Gould

Baltimore Sun

It's a better idea to award home-field advantage in the World Series based on just about anything other than the result of the All-Star Game.


As long as baseball insists on having every team represented in the Midsummer Classic and starters are decided by fan voting — thereby all but ensuring players who don't statistically deserve to be All-Stars are playing in the game — it makes no sense for the outcome to have postseason implications.

I'm not advocating changing the way rosters are determined. Let's keep the All-Star Game what it was meant to be: an exhibition for the fans, not a would-be incentive that ultimately matters to only two playoff teams.

Baseball needs drama

Phil Rogers

Chicago Tribune


Admittedly, I'm biased. I go to the All-Star Game every year.

While critics never stop complaining about the fairness issue with assigning home-field advantage to the winner of the game, there's no questioning that the stakes have improved the competitiveness of the game, which has returned to the level from the era when players had pride in the leagues.

To me, the current system works. But I say that because it has improved the All-Star Game and is a better way to assign home field than rotating years, as had been done previously. Season series of interleague play would be fairer, yes, but not better. Drama works in sports, and there's little drama in counting the totals on a daily basis.